On 5 Apr, 19:54, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 18:04:15 -0700, "art" wrote:







On 5 Apr, 17:12, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 16:13:12 -0700, "art" wrote:
snip
Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Walt, if you are looking for maximum horizontal or any other polarity
it can only be obtained by removal of reception of other polarities,
this maximum is obtained by having the radiator at 90 degree
multiples with respect to earth. You can prove this to your self
anytime by calculating max horizontal gain by progressively tipping a
dipole while keeping it resonant until the maximum is reached. If your
concern is for total gain without regard to polarity mix then the
vertical position total gain will equal the total gain of the tipped
dipole. The difference is that one arrangement has a mixture of
polarities where-as the tipped antenna will only provide a single
polarity. If another element or anything else is added near enough to
add reactance then the prior antenna must be adjusted to remove it,
thus the reason for remote adjustment which is much cheaper to
maintain rather than regular trips up a tower by maintanance men.
Hopefully Walter this will bring you up to date. I have no reason for
a 300 posting thread as I do not intend to write rev 3 of Reflections
or anything else.
Regards
Art

Art, using correct terminology is essential in preventing misunderstandings, as you have done with 'polarity'.
You have confused 'polarity' with 'polarization'--the two are not synonomous, but are distinctly different.
Sorry, Art, your misuse of this term has been confusing, rather than enlightening. Are you blaming me for the
more than 300 postings on this thread?

Walt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Walt
Now why would I blame you for over 300 postings? Obviously you have
created some confusion which is natural for our hobby since we are an
old group which gives justification to "there is no fool like an old
fool" Nothing personal. Lets face it we oversell experience when in a
lot of cases it is the same experience over and over again. Anybody
here who remembers the Sputnik probably would not be able to get a
degree today or even the same job. On this tilt thing if you look at
patents in the 6 million plus area most would not understand what they
were referring to, whereas the present day student understands thing
fully since he grew up with digital transmissions. Heck most of us
retired before the last ten years which is becoming the heydays of
antenna research. Yes, as I get older I make the same mistakes as all
old people do and you make provision for other old people unless you
think your self as perfect as would a younger person who just got his
degree and was up to date.
The difference ofcourse is the young student wants to prove things to
himself until he gets behind technically when he then asks for proof
from others. If I look back at the past arguments on my threads many
pull out the 50 year old books that we have stored away. The modern
student will look up Google and even if he is a few years out of
school would have checked the computor for reference to "adjusting
antennas" or "tilting antennas"to get up to date where as the old
timer thinks he is still back in the old days so his knoweledge is up
to date and cannot adapt to the present situation he there is no
reference to that in my books.Odd thing I saw the other day was a book
by Terman and would you believe it nowhere in the book does the words
of "maxwell" or Gauss" show up so they must be imaginary also. Yup,
Walt as you get older you will find that a lot more people are mixed
up except you and need to be told so until the time come that more
people are saying it to you forcing you to be more tolerant.
Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas e.t.c instead of
discarding information in
favour of the opportunity to mock while the younger more knowledgable
members give a quiet smile to themselves. Walt were you aware of the
reasons for tipping? I doubt it because you probably can remember the
Sputnik when the standards of education was lower and Google was not
around.
Never heard you come forward with respect to the Gaussian and Maxwell
argument either before or after the young M.I.T guy put every body
straight or did you know it anyway but just didn't want to correct
people then?
Art

Art, you say I have created confusion? Over what? Confusion? How about responding to your misuse of the term
'polarity'? Now that's confusion.

And you say that some MIT guy put everybody straight? Just what is it the everybody needed straightening about
that the MIT guy is supposed to have done? And are you implying that Terman, Kraus, Johnson, et al are wrong,
and that we need 'straightening out' because we learned it wrong from these masters of 50 years ago?

And you're also saying that our educational standards are better now? Art, what have you been smoking? And are
you also saying that the new graduate with no hands-on experience outweighs a graduate of 30 years ago with
experience gained during those 30 years? What planet are you from, Art, certainly not Earth.

Think about it,

Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 5 Apr, 19:54, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 18:04:15 -0700, "art" wrote:







On 5 Apr, 17:12, Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 16:13:12 -0700, "art" wrote:
snip
Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Walt, if you are looking for maximum horizontal or any other polarity
it can only be obtained by removal of reception of other polarities,
this maximum is obtained by having the radiator at 90 degree
multiples with respect to earth. You can prove this to your self
anytime by calculating max horizontal gain by progressively tipping a
dipole while keeping it resonant until the maximum is reached. If your
concern is for total gain without regard to polarity mix then the
vertical position total gain will equal the total gain of the tipped
dipole. The difference is that one arrangement has a mixture of
polarities where-as the tipped antenna will only provide a single
polarity. If another element or anything else is added near enough to
add reactance then the prior antenna must be adjusted to remove it,
thus the reason for remote adjustment which is much cheaper to
maintain rather than regular trips up a tower by maintanance men.
Hopefully Walter this will bring you up to date. I have no reason for
a 300 posting thread as I do not intend to write rev 3 of Reflections
or anything else.
Regards
Art

Art, using correct terminology is essential in preventing misunderstandings, as you have done with 'polarity'.
You have confused 'polarity' with 'polarization'--the two are not synonomous, but are distinctly different.
Sorry, Art, your misuse of this term has been confusing, rather than enlightening. Are you blaming me for the
more than 300 postings on this thread?

Walt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Walt
Now why would I blame you for over 300 postings? Obviously you have
created some confusion which is natural for our hobby since we are an
old group which gives justification to "there is no fool like an old
fool" Nothing personal. Lets face it we oversell experience when in a
lot of cases it is the same experience over and over again. Anybody
here who remembers the Sputnik probably would not be able to get a
degree today or even the same job. On this tilt thing if you look at
patents in the 6 million plus area most would not understand what they
were referring to, whereas the present day student understands thing
fully since he grew up with digital transmissions. Heck most of us
retired before the last ten years which is becoming the heydays of
antenna research. Yes, as I get older I make the same mistakes as all
old people do and you make provision for other old people unless you
think your self as perfect as would a younger person who just got his
degree and was up to date.
The difference ofcourse is the young student wants to prove things to
himself until he gets behind technically when he then asks for proof
from others. If I look back at the past arguments on my threads many
pull out the 50 year old books that we have stored away. The modern
student will look up Google and even if he is a few years out of
school would have checked the computor for reference to "adjusting
antennas" or "tilting antennas"to get up to date where as the old
timer thinks he is still back in the old days so his knoweledge is up
to date and cannot adapt to the present situation he there is no
reference to that in my books.Odd thing I saw the other day was a book
by Terman and would you believe it nowhere in the book does the words
of "maxwell" or Gauss" show up so they must be imaginary also. Yup,
Walt as you get older you will find that a lot more people are mixed
up except you and need to be told so until the time come that more
people are saying it to you forcing you to be more tolerant.
Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas e.t.c instead of
discarding information in
favour of the opportunity to mock while the younger more knowledgable
members give a quiet smile to themselves. Walt were you aware of the
reasons for tipping? I doubt it because you probably can remember the
Sputnik when the standards of education was lower and Google was not
around.
Never heard you come forward with respect to the Gaussian and Maxwell
argument either before or after the young M.I.T guy put every body
straight or did you know it anyway but just didn't want to correct
people then?
Art

Art, you say I have created confusion? Over what?

Walter, you complained about not getting as many responses as I, I
accept that sometimes my threads are as long as 50 posts instead of
just a few for agreement Yours is now 300 is it you or others who are
confused.You think about it

Confusion? How about responding to your misuse of the term
'polarity'? Now that's confusion.

And you say that some MIT guy put everybody straight? Just what is it the everybody needed straightening about
that the MIT guy is supposed to have done?
Well one person finally concurred and nobody refuted this concurrence
so you think the majority are correct because they didn't agree?

And are you implying that Terman, Kraus, Johnson, et al are wrong,
and that we need 'straightening out' because we learned it wrong from these masters of 50 years ago?
You remembered it from 50 years ago, that is a lot of difference from
truly understanding it. The MIT and another individual from down under
agreed with the mathematics that underlined what I was talking about
invoking what the masters stated. So it is you who must have learned
it wrong 50 years ago
but you have time to correct the M.I.T guy and the guy from down under
that they had misused mathematics some how and came up with formular
that disputes the masters. Actually the guy from MIT gave a terrific
response that didnot receive any reject from anybody including you.

And you're also saying that our educational standards are better now? Art, what have you been smoking? And are
you also saying that the new graduate with no hands-on experience outweighs a graduate of 30 years ago with
experience gained during those 30 years?

Yes I do unless the experienced guy kept up with progress such as a
Professor. When I spoke about polarity and tipping a younger person
knowing what I was talking about would have adapted while you who knew
nothing about the subject could not adapt. If you are not aware of
modern day practices then you would not get hired today. New graduates
always get the nod over senior citizens.


What planet are you from, Art, certainly not Earth.

It is on earth we are talking about when we talk of tilting and the
correlattion of gaussian theory with respect to radiation. You have
presented nothing with respect to supposed inaccuracy which says you
are ignorant of it. Why else does one ridicule another person by
moving away from science ? So if you disagree with the tipping process
for antennas or if you disagree with the response from M.I.T. then put
your stake in the ground and state your superiority in mathematacs
rather than driving the stake into the messenger. If you take this
small step I assure you this thread will not last as long as yours.
You may be able to distort science
but you can't refute mathematics by killing the mathematician. Perhaps
it is better that you put your eyes and ears back into the ground . On
the other hand I would be impressed if you could prove your position
but you have shown that you can't by burying your head in the sand.
Walter we are all getting older and it is harder to keep up with
things, that is something that we all have to accept and you are not
immune to it, and it shows
Art




Think about it,

Walt, W2DU- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 26 Mar, 19:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





Antennas seemed to have evolved into structures that
are parallel or at right angles to the earths surface
Why is this or is it asthetics that is driving this thinking?
My research on the subject evolves around the vector formation
of radiation and where the addition of the vectors involved
which creats radiation is at an angle to the radiator..
This suggests that for best radiative advantage it is
this vector that should be parallel to the earths surface
and not the physical radiator. This appears to be born out
by following my Gaussian approach to radiator design.
So the question of habitual arrangement of antenna arrays
parallel or at right angles to the earths surface as
being the best arrangement needs some sort of validation.
Any thoughts as to why it should be so and the scientific
facts that support it?
Art

What angle did you derive was the best angle to mount an anenna? Please show
experimental data to backup your conclusions.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heh Jimmie,
I was looking at a book that showed the scanning lines of a tv.
It also showed aperture as being bisected equally by these same
scanning lines.
Since aperture is directly related to gain one could probably state
that the
angle of the scan lines on a TV is directly related to the tipping
angle for radiation. Both are magnetically related ie angle of release
of an electron so you may get a better answer from a T.V. technician
with respect to angles than ham radio operators. Isn't science great
when your brain is nimble and curious!
Art

Art wrote:
"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I will have to read it for myself, it doesn't seem to be relavent but
I'll check to see if you are seeing things in context. The book I
quoted regarding scan lines was Terman by the way. The Kraus book did
not present any great changes to older versions which is often the
case when publishers present 2nd or 3rd editions to squeeze any
remaining profits However I will read it to see if the microwave
portion is up to date rather than a reissue

Some of the best reasons are empirical. Numerous studies have shown
that the clutter return from the sea surface is considerably higher in
horizontal polarization. I am on vacation, so I don't have my Skolnik
handy to say exactly how much. Anyway, this favors a vertical polarization.

Similarly, practical considerations make vertical polarization the best
for mobile applications. The 1/4 whip is the simplest antenna structure
on a mobile platform. While base stations could as easily use
horizontal or vertical, any mobile horizontal antenna will require extra
structure to implement.

In both of these applications there is nothing be gained by going to any
other polarization than vertical for these uses. In cases where
horizontal polarization has an advantage, there is no reason to go
partly vertical. So that is why the world end up either being vertical
or horizontal for the most part. Where it doesn't, polarization usually
doesn't matter or is less of a concern than other reasons (see inverted
vees and sloping dipoles).

Erich
KA6AMD

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 27 Mar, 15:12, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"I have his (Kraus`) second edition (Antennas) and I find no mention of
radiation from the beginning where current is applied onward."

I think I have that edition too. If you review the chapter on "Point
Sources" you`ll find: power patterns, a power theorem and its
application to isotropic sources, rediation intensity, source with
hemispheric power pattern, unidirectional cosine power pattern, etc.,
etc..

The new, now available 3rd ed. of "Antennas" by Kraus, Marhefka, and a
host of others is greatly expanded and improved. It is worth the
investment.

Being uncertain of what Art really wants, doesn`t stop me from advising
him to start by having a look at the famous Sommerfeld formula on page
804 of Terman`s 1955 opus.
It predicts 1 kilowatt will produce 186 mv per m at a distance of 1 mile
from a short vertical transmitting antenna given a certain ground
conductivity and other conditions.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Richard, I have lots of books but as yet have not found the answer
even tho many have posted none appear to really have an answer other
than to throw stones. You apparently have found the answer! Could you
quote from the books that you are refering to the angle of radiation
relative to the radiator, thats it ? If you can't understand that then
relay to me the angle of a radiation front relative to a radiator, I'm
sure some other people are interested in what you found. Even better,
let me know the TOA of a dipole in free space and how much it varies
to that of the same dipole over a perfect ground. Use a computor
program if you like, anything that sheds light on the matter . The
books say that a horizontal "v" antenna should be tipped for max gain,
doesn't that raise your interest about the reasoning and mathematics
behind this? Jimmie D asked me to state this angle but I have only a
expensive computor program that doesn't give the math with the answer.
Please read off the angle and the specifics so we all can move on, I
don't want a 160 thread postings some thrust upon Walt
Art

The V antenna is a terminated traveling wave antenna the dipoles that you
have been refering to are standingwave antennas. You are comparing apples
and oranges. The best I can tell is that all other references you made to
tilt have been perpedicular to the direction of the wave front. The V
antenna is tilted in the direction of the wave front, more apples and
oranges. Throw in some grapes and pineapple and we will have fruit salad.

Jimmie

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 26 Mar, 19:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





Antennas seemed to have evolved into structures that
are parallel or at right angles to the earths surface
Why is this or is it asthetics that is driving this thinking?
My research on the subject evolves around the vector formation
of radiation and where the addition of the vectors involved
which creats radiation is at an angle to the radiator..
This suggests that for best radiative advantage it is
this vector that should be parallel to the earths surface
and not the physical radiator. This appears to be born out
by following my Gaussian approach to radiator design.
So the question of habitual arrangement of antenna arrays
parallel or at right angles to the earths surface as
being the best arrangement needs some sort of validation.
Any thoughts as to why it should be so and the scientific
facts that support it?
Art

What angle did you derive was the best angle to mount an anenna? Please
show
experimental data to backup your conclusions.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heh Jimmie,
I was looking at a book that showed the scanning lines of a tv.
It also showed aperture as being bisected equally by these same
scanning lines.
Since aperture is directly related to gain one could probably state
that the
angle of the scan lines on a TV is directly related to the tipping
angle for radiation. Both are magnetically related ie angle of release
of an electron so you may get a better answer from a T.V. technician
with respect to angles than ham radio operators. Isn't science great
when your brain is nimble and curious!
Art

It must be wonderful to wake up ina new world every morning.

Jimme

Phil wrote:

Some of the best reasons are empirical. Numerous studies have shown
that the clutter return from the sea surface is considerably higher in
horizontal polarization. I am on vacation, so I don't have my Skolnik
handy to say exactly how much. Anyway, this favors a vertical
polarization.

Similarly, practical considerations make vertical polarization the best
for mobile applications. The 1/4 whip is the simplest antenna structure
on a mobile platform. While base stations could as easily use
horizontal or vertical, any mobile horizontal antenna will require extra
structure to implement.

In both of these applications there is nothing be gained by going to any
other polarization than vertical for these uses. In cases where
horizontal polarization has an advantage, there is no reason to go
partly vertical. So that is why the world end up either being vertical
or horizontal for the most part. Where it doesn't, polarization usually
doesn't matter or is less of a concern than other reasons (see inverted
vees and sloping dipoles).

Erich
KA6AMD


Interesting that you think that vertical is the best polarization for
mobile operation. I have done a lot of testing on 2 meters with equal
gain end to end that would indicate that you are quite mistaken.
Horizontal polarization from a fixed station to a mobile, or a mobile
station to a mobile is much more effective if horizontally polarized.
The reasons for this are well documented, so I won't go into that. The
most obvious notable difference is that "picket fence" fading is much
worse when vertically polarized.

The major reason vertical polarization is used (for FM) is that it is
easy. SSB/CW on VHF/UHF is still horizontal when mobile.

tom
K0TAR

On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I couldn't find my Kraus book so I will have to let your
comment go.
I did look in the Jasik book on parasitic elements.
It said"A parrasitic element properly tuned will operate in phase-and-
field relationships
approximating those computed.In multi element arrays, independent
control and phase and amplitude is required and parasitics should be
avoided. However, they may be employed in antennas
designed primarily for power gain" To me this describes a yagi with
parasitic elements designed for power gain regardless of the mix of
polarisation. The Gauss system which does not use parasitics and
therefore pursues the independent control AND PHASE AND AMPLITUDE.
A yagi in a 90 degree multiple of earth does operate in a field
relationship because of its multi phase radiation where as the
gaussion tilts to remove unwanted phase and keeps only the required
phase. This is extremely important in cell transmittions since
channels are only of use when the polarisation is correct and any area
that does not comprise of the correct polarisation results in a
dropped call.
In my last post I mentioned the slope between scanning lines on a T.V.
as a reference line for true polarity. Any comment with respect to the
veracity of that statement since I see a direct corrorally between
that and radiation tilt angles?
Best regards
Art

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 6 Apr, 08:48, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frankly a lot of people on this net need to get up to speed with
respect to radiation such as tipped antennas ---."

Yesterday`s response seems to have been gobbled in cyber space.

Not all my reference books are over 50 years old. One of my best was
published in 2003 although its principal author was born in 1910. He is
J.D. Kraus, but he had numerous and likely younger collaborators, 6 of
whom are listed as co-authors. The title: "Antennas For All
Applications. 3rd edition".

On page 297 is found an item which illustrates what happens when you tip
an antenna. It is titled: "Antenna Rotation Experiments":
"Consider the radio circuit shown in Fig. 8-74a in which one antenna is
circularly polarized (a turnstile?) and the other is linearly polarized.
If one of the antennas is rotated about its axis a frequency f (r/s),
the received signal is shifted to F + or - f, where F is the transmitter
frequency."

Fig. 8-74 notes:
"Antenna rotation produces amplitude modulation."

Of course it does. When the linear antenna is aligned parallel to one
axis of the CP antenna, the signal is maximum. When the linear antenna
is most misaligned with either axis of the CP antenna, signal is a
minimum. The example demonstrates why polarization alignment, not
tipping or tilt, is usually important.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I couldn't find my Kraus book so I will have to let your
comment go.
I did look in the Jasik book on parasitic elements.
It said"A parrasitic element properly tuned will operate in phase-and-
field relationships
approximating those computed.In multi element arrays, independent
control and phase and amplitude is required and parasitics should be
avoided. However, they may be employed in antennas
designed primarily for power gain" To me this describes a yagi with
parasitic elements designed for power gain regardless of the mix of
polarisation. The Gauss system which does not use parasitics and
therefore pursues the independent control AND PHASE AND AMPLITUDE.
A yagi in a 90 degree multiple of earth does operate in a field
relationship because of its multi phase radiation where as the
gaussion tilts to remove unwanted phase and keeps only the required
phase. This is extremely important in cell transmittions since
channels are only of use when the polarisation is correct and any area
that does not comprise of the correct polarisation results in a
dropped call.
In my last post I mentioned the slope between scanning lines on a T.V.
as a reference line for true polarity. Any comment with respect to the
veracity of that statement since I see a direct corrorally between
that and radiation tilt angles?
Best regards
Art


Perhaps you should actually make an effort to explain why you see the
relationships you see. I can think of no reason why anyone should be
expected to go into great detail to explain your fallacies while you use
almost no effort to explain why you think you are right.

Jimmie